You're viewing a single thread.
It turns out Principled people don't simply just follow the "what's in it for me" logic.
What! A! Shocker!!!
⢀⣠⣾⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠀⠀⠀⠀⣠⣤⣶⣶ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠀⠀⠀⢰⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣧⣀⣀⣾⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡏⠉⠛⢿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠀⠀⠀⠈⠛⢿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠿⠛⠉⠁⠀⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣧⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠙⠿⠿⠿⠻⠿⠿⠟⠿⠛⠉⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣸⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣷⣄⠀⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣴⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠏⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠠⣴⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡟⠀⠀⢰⣹⡆⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣭⣷⠀⠀⠀⠸⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠃⠀⠀⠈⠉⠀⠀⠤⠄⠀⠀⠀⠉⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⢿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⢾⣿⣷⠀⠀⠀⠀⡠⠤⢄⠀⠀⠀⠠⣿⣿⣷⠀⢸⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡀⠉⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢄⠀⢀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠉⠉⠁⠀⠀⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣧⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢹⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠃⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸⣿⣿I'm not surprised if there is Hasbara psyops on this to diminish any support for Palestine. They seem to be on overtime accusing anyone of anti-Semitism.
It needs not even be Hasbara: it's a pretty standard technique of Liberals who support some immoral position (generally it's about things like cutting the support for the poorest which is social security or having healthcare privatised) to try and leverage identity politics by unreasonably stretching some vague association with a liberal identity group to excuse it or deflect criticism of it (a quite common one is for politicians that happen to be female to bat away criticism of their immoral positions by claiming the criticism is because they are women), so I wouldn't at all be surprised if the source of this specific framing is actually the Biden Administration/Democrat Party trying to make their support for Zionism and their Genocide seem less immoral.
Not saying it's for sure the Democrats rather than the Zionists because with these two is hard to tell as they both would do it:
- Whilst justifying certain (mainly pro-Money) choices using an unrelated or barelly related identity group that has a history of being victims of descrimination has been a traditional Liberal technique, whilst the Fascists would do the same using national identities (i.e. framing stuff as "For the Nation"), the very special case of the Zionists, who are Fascists within an identitarian group in a nation that has specifically bound that identity with nationality, means they have long used the Liberal's technique (of binding things to an identity group which has a history of being victims) because in their case the "For the Nation" overlaps pretty well with the identity groups (and when it doesn't, they just make believe it does).
Either way, the whole "argument" stinks of hypocrisy and machiavelism.
I mean, I oppose genocide (among other things) on the basis that I wouldn't like being murdered and I prefer to live in a society that doesn't accept genocide. That's kind of self-serving in a way.
Well, in Phylosophy there is the idea of Psychological Egoism, which is basically that we are all always selfish because even when doing good deeds we do it because at the very least it makes us feel good.
So you could always and for all acts assemble a rational argument that the act was done for selfish reasons.
Permanently Deleted
My problem with this line of thinking is that it doesn't seem to be falsifiable. Why did you help the old grandma across the road? Because you got a little mental reward. Why do you vote for a candidate who promises to reduce the cost of housing when you own a house and would stand to benefit from higher costs? Because you got a little mental reward.
Which is why it's in the domain of Philosophy, same as the whole idea of "I think therefore I am" (which is as far as answers got to the question of, roughly, "How do you know that anythink you know is real, including yourself, if your sense can be decieve?").
Philosophy is the mother of Science, but it ain't Science.
Falsifiability is also derived from philosophy. Science and philosophy are intertwined.